A question on Dialectical Materialism

[Comrade Dracula]

That has to be one of the more commonly asked questions around here, so I apologize if I'm reposting something that's been posted a few thousand times.

I wanted to ask if my understanding of dialectical materialism is correct/incorrect, so here it goes...

Dialectical analysis, unlike the forms before it, doesn't seek to analyze its subject in some form of timeless seclusion, but rather analyzes its evolution throughout time as well as in relation to other objects that it shares its existence with.

For example, let's assume that the reality includes three different elements, A, B and C.
A dialectical analysis of element A wouldn't just describe the element A as if it exists outside of any reality (i.e. only its own qualities as they are at the time of the analysis), but would rather observe how it interacts and affects elements B and C as well as how they in turn interact and affect it throughout the existence of those three elements.

Now, dialectical analyses can often unearth internal contradictions (i.e. the opposing nature of elements A and B). The basic analysis and prediction of the outcome of such contradiction would be represented in the most basic expression of Thesis (i.e. element A), Antithesis (i.e. the opposite element B) and Synthesis (the logical conclusion of the conflict that exists between A and B, e.g. the destruction of element A).

Now, onto materialism.

Materialism is a philosophy which states that it is the material reality which shapes the ideas, which opposes the currently dominant bourgeois idealism (i.e. the idea that it is ideas which shape material reality).

Or, in example:
We have Joe, your average worker working for a random bourgeois. So far, the bourgeois has been a "kind" master, giving Joe a reasonable wage.
However, now an economic crisis hits the markets and that material condition forces the bourgeois to get the idea to cut Joe's wage in order to maintain his profit margin.
Now that Joe is getting paid less, he is by extension unable to keep his family well fed. This material condition, in turn, forces Joe to start thinking that the system may not be as perfect as he once thought it was. This in turn shapes his idea that he should join a union in order to protect his wages (a simplistic representation, but I hope it works).
Now Joe joins a union, effectively changing the material conditions.

Or in a more abstract sense, it was not an idea which forced a material change (e.g. Idea-Material Change), but the material conditions which have forced Joe to get the idea to become a union member which in turn resulted a change of material conditions (e.g. Material Change-Idea-Material Change), so by extension, it was ultimately material change that forced yet another material change.

This, when applied to historical matters results in Historical Materialism, which views the entirety of history (including the one that's being forged right now and the one that is yet to be forged) in a dialectical and materialist analysis (i.e. Dialectical Materialism), as opposed to viewing the history as a bunch of great men forging the way for history to go forward (aka bourgeois idealism).

And there goes my understanding of Dialectical Materialism. Please comment and point out any mistakes I have (undoubtedly) made.

Thanks in advance, comrades!

[Lobotomy]

I am just getting a feel for this kind of stuff as well, so if this post is incorrect I hope that someone will correct me.


Dialectical analysis, unlike the forms before it, doesn't seek to analyze its subject in some form of timeless seclusion, but rather analyzes its evolution throughout time as well as in relation to other objects that it shares its existence with.

For example, let's assume that the reality includes three different elements, A, B and C.
A dialectical analysis of element A wouldn't just describe the element A as if it exists outside of any reality (i.e. only its own qualities as they are at the time of the analysis), but would rather observe how it interacts and affects elements B and C as well as how they in turn interact and affect it throughout the existence of those three elements.

precisely. the emphasis is on the ever-changing nature of conditions.


Now, dialectical analyses can often unearth internal contradictions (i.e. the opposing nature of elements A and B). The basic analysis and prediction of the outcome of such contradiction would be represented in the most basic expression of Thesis (i.e. element A), Antithesis (i.e. the opposite element B) and Synthesis (the logical conclusion of the conflict that exists between A and B, e.g. the destruction of element A).

While this is technically correct, I think the thesis-antithesis-synthesis terminology is usually used in reference to Hegel's dialectic (ie. not explicitly Marxist).


Now, onto materialism.

Materialism is a philosophy which states that it is the material reality which shapes the ideas, which opposes the currently dominant bourgeois idealism (i.e. the idea that it is ideas which shape material reality).

Or, in example:
We have Joe, your average worker working for a random bourgeois. So far, the bourgeois has been a "kind" master, giving Joe a reasonable wage.
However, now an economic crisis hits the markets and that material condition forces the bourgeois to get the idea to cut Joe's wage in order to maintain his profit margin.
Now that Joe is getting paid less, he is by extension unable to keep his family well fed. This material condition, in turn, forces Joe to start thinking that the system may not be as perfect as he once thought it was. This in turn shapes his idea that he should join a union in order to protect his wages (a simplistic representation, but I hope it works).
Now Joe joins a union, effectively changing the material conditions.

Or in a more abstract sense, it was not an idea which forced a material change (e.g. Idea-Material Change), but the material conditions which have forced Joe to get the idea to become a union member which in turn resulted a change of material conditions (e.g. Material Change-Idea-Material Change), so by extension, it was ultimately material change that forced yet another material change.

This, when applied to historical matters results in Historical Materialism, which views the entirety of history (including the one that's being forged right now and the one that is yet to be forged) in a dialectical and materialist analysis (i.e. Dialectical Materialism), as opposed to viewing the history as a bunch of great men forging the way for history to go forward (aka bourgeois idealism).

indeed. Taken one step further, it's the idea that material conditions fundamentally influence all other aspects of a society (such as religions, the model of the family, etc). it is the part of dialectical materialism that is easier to understand ;).